Police: society's willing sacrifices??

[Slytovhand]

This story...

is about a 15yo boy who was shot and killed by police, after stealing some large knives and going on a tantrum - threatening to kill police etc.

Police tried various things to restrain the youth, but no doubt felt threated enough for their lives that they had to shoot him (although, story seems to indicate that while several shots were fired, only 1 or 2 actually hit).

But, in discussing this at work, it was suggested that the police should have done other things, such as tried to tackle the youth.

Now, after capsicum spray was used (a couple of times) to no avail, I would say that doing such would put the police into an extremely dangerous situation - after all, it doesn't really take a lot to badly injure, maim or kill a person with a large knife.

My CW's opinion was that police ought to make such sacrifices, to put themselves in harm's way, for the benefit of 'society' - which in this case means a knife wielding, drug affected teen.

I disagree, and think that police have as their first priority, their own personal safety. Once that is assured, then look after the rest of the people. (sure, there are times when they will put their lives on the line - but not as a sacrificial lamb).

Thoughts and opinions?? (and this is not about whether they should have aimed for the arms/legs... let's not get into the practicalities of that!)

[DesignFox]

The police tried TWICE to incapacitate the teen without harming him. The teen was warned without gunfire to stop advancing. After that, warning shots were fired, and he still advanced with the knives. He was a threat, and they neutralized him.

Yes, the police have a responsibility to the public not to immediately come out guns blazing. But if all non-lethal attempts fail, and the assailant insists on continuing the attack, no way in hell do I expect ANY person to sit there and take it. They have every right to protect themselves- not just for their own sake, but for the sake of their fellow officers and any innocent by-standers.

[Greenday]

If the story is exactly as I read, it doesn't seem like the cops did anything wrong. The cops warned him, tried non-lethal weapons, fired warning shots, and when their lives were still being threatened, along with potentially anyone else in the area, they aimed to put him down. Society is not being made any better by cops taking unnecessary risks that would lower the amount of cops on the streets, making the streets more dangerous. They did what they had to do.

[lordlundar]

Unfortunately, these days being a police officer is a thankless job. Nothing they do can be considered justified. They are either incompetent or abusive.

For example, I haven't seen one police chase ending in an accident that wasn't blamed on the police. I've even seen one where the police back off, and the person they are chasing crash and die well after the chase is called off. The police were blamed for the death by the police for "forcing him to run".

In this case, they're being nailed for abuse of authority. If they tried other means to restrain him and he got injured by his own actions or kills himself, it's the police's fault for failing to protect him from himself. If they accidentally injure him, they get blamed for excessive use of force, if an innocent bystander gets injured, it's their fault for failing to protect the public. If an officer gets injured, GREAT! One less abusive/incompetent cop on the street.

The police do their job to the best of their ability, which is tough enough as it is, and get called abusive, corrupt or incompetent, usually all three at once. Add to this the covert and overt hatred for police for little more than trying to do their job, I keep finding it excessively tough to understand why someone would want to do this, and am thankful for those that do.

[Flyndaran]

I feel that it's all the cases of dirty cops using excessive force that tarnish the ones that do do everything they can.
Here in the Portland Oregon metro area, cops have gotten away with so many cases of murder, that even the few where individuals do aboslutely no wrong are still tarred with the same brush.

If we actually got rid of dirty cops, then the public might gain a little more respect and save a little benefit of the doubt for cops.

[Boozy]

Car chases are a tough one.

Usually, the news only presents part of the story. We see a police car tailing a fleeing suspect's car, and we assume that the cops are using speed to catch up to him/her. That's not necessarily the case. They are using their sirens to alert traffic ahead that a maniac is coming towards them while their colleagues set up tire strips up ahead (or something of the sort). We rarely see the road blocks that have been set up to keep traffic off the road or the blockades set up to keep the criminal from entering residential side streets. And the police are often following much farther back than they could be, trying to get the criminal to ease off the gas. The cops are often behaving far more responsibly than we give them credit for.

Cops get blamed for car chase accidents because people have higher expectations of them than they do of criminals; if someone has to be the "bigger person" it's gonna have to be the cop. That is both understandable and logical. But it's never good to make snap judgments about situations we know nothing about.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Yes, the police have a responsibility to the public not to immediately come out guns blazing. But if all non-lethal attempts fail, and the assailant insists on continuing the attack, no way in hell do I expect ANY person to sit there and take it. They have every right to protect themselves- not just for their own sake, but for the sake of their fellow officers and any innocent by-standers.

This. *applauds*

[crazylegs]

The police (in the UK at least) are taught that their safety is paramount. If they get injured or incapacitated then who looks after everyone else...?

[Flyndaran]

The police (in the UK at least) are taught that their safety is paramount. If they get injured or incapacitated then who looks after everyone else...?

Absolutely. We must always understand that everyone in every profession is human. Everyone deserves certain rights, not the least being to freaking life! If we demand any group to be perfect and heroic, then when they suffer from the horrors of normal people, bad situations will just get worse.

My father was a heroic police officer. The idea of expecting anyone else to live up to his standard is ludicrous. I don't expect anyone to avoid shooting back at people and instead talk them down to a peaceful resolution. I don't expect anyone to stay abosolutely clean in a department so corrupt every other cop is arrested in an FBI sting. Etc.

I expect cops to be honorable but still human in their jobs.

[Slytovhand]

Yay all for the voice for the coppers

The reason I posted was that my co-workers did the "But they shot a 15 year old boy!!! What was a 15 year old small and skinny kid going to do? They should have shot him in the leg. All cops are pigs".

One thing I did note is that I got that particular story after we read one that didn't mention the kid only got hit once (implying he was shot up to 6 times). Funny how CW backed off a bit when I mentioned he was only hit once in the chest.

[Evandril]

Concidering that I've heard of people taking more than one fatal shot, and keep coming, depending on the drugs in 'em...Yeah, can't blame them in the least. I'd not doubt some of those six shots where *trying* to take out the knife or the like...and it just wasn't possible.

They showed far more restraint than I would have...which is why I'd never be a cop Well, one of the reasons, at least

[smileyeagle1021]

They showed far more restraint than I would have...which is why I'd never be a cop Well, one of the reasons, at least

ditto... if I had a gun and a guy came at me with a knife I wouldn't hesitate to empty my clip into him... if it comes down to me or him, I chose ME.

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot, before actually firing at him (and presumably most of the shots had the aim of disabling him, not killing him) shows a superhuman level of restraint as far as I'm concerned.

[daleduke17]

It looks like the officers were justified.

- Verbal commands didn't work
- OC spray didn't work
- agitated and armed person advancing on officers


Yeah, I would have shot as well.

[Flyndaran]

ditto... if I had a gun and a guy came at me with a knife I wouldn't hesitate to empty my clip into him... if it comes down to me or him, I chose ME.

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot, before actually firing at him (and presumably most of the shots had the aim of disabling him, not killing him) shows a superhuman level of restraint as far as I'm concerned.

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

[daleduke17]

But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.

What was the "reasonable alternative" in the case shown by the OP?